Blind Hammer makes the case against penalty Shootouts.
West Ham are, by dint of their European adventure, excused from League Cup action this week. However we will have to join the next round. Listening to the fate of other teams last night reminded me as to why I hate penalty shootouts.
Part of this is the emotional scarring from the 2006 FA Cup Final. Then we lost after missing 3 penalties against Liverpool. Coincidentally I came across a blog yesterday from a Liverpool supporter remembering this game.
His memory was of amazement that Liverpool escaped from this Final with a lucky shootout win, being unexpectedly dominated by a West Ham team he described as “fearless” on that fateful day.
Sadly the Herculean performance of that 2006 team, with arguably the best Cup run in West Ham’s history, beating multiple quality top flight opponents on their way to the Final, was instead eclipsed by the artifice of a penalty shootout.
I know I am going out on a limb here, and realise that I am likely to be derided but I am utterly opposed to the penalty shootout. The thing I hate most is that they are ultimately all based on the creation of football failure rather than football excellence. Failure is embedded into the heart of the shootout system.
You can have as much football excellence as you like, over 90 minutes, even celebrating the taking of successful penalties. However the shootout must have at its core a failure, a villain, a team member to deride. For the system to work someone has to fail, miss and fall to their knees in misery.
At its root the shootout system demands a player has the dramatic experience of failure which in all probability is to a degree completely out of proportion to their overall contribution in the game as a
whole.
The bigger the occasion, the worst this reliance on individual failure is that you can have a fantastic game but all that people will remember is that you are the rogue, the fall guy who surrendered, snatching defeat from victory.
The bigger the game the worst the scale of failure will be, a scale of failure which can haunt a player for the rest of their careers. People instantly associate Stuart Pearce, not necessarily for the excellence of his defending but for missing a crucial penalty in a shoot out. This is just out of proportion and completely unfair.
This individual haunting of players as culpable for defeat is out of kilter and out of step, with what is ultimately a team game with collective effort and responsibility. Goalkeepers can make crucial mistakes but can redeem themselves with an excellent save. There is no redemption for those who miss a high profile penalty with no second chance.
So what is the solution? What we need is a system which relies upon and encourages success rather than voyeuristically gazing on misery and failure. Teams should win matches by scoring goals and not relying on exposed agonies of players missing goals.
I would re-instate the Golden Goal system but with an important amendment. That is, at the commencement of extra time each team has to withdraw 3 players. This would leave just 7 outfield players and a goalkeeper. This would instantly open up a game and make defending in numbers untenable.
My suspicion is that with these reduced numbers a goal of some kind would rapidly arise in the vast majority of cases. With the golden Goal system, as soon as a goal is scored the match would be decided.
In the unlikely event no goal has been scored with reduced numbers by half time, in extra time, a further 3 players would have to be withdrawn, leaving a five a side contest for the second half of Extra Time. Again the first goal would decide the context.
In the vanishingly unlikely situation that these Five a side teams still cannot break the deadlock, the game should continue. A further player is withdrawn to leave 3 outfield players, and then in 5 minute segments a
further player is withdrawn after each 5 minute segment. So after the first 5 minutes you will have only 2 outfield players.
You would eventually end up with one player against another player in a dribbling / shooting contest for a goal, but I could never believe that would happen in reality, though I think the TV companies would love to broadcast it, if they could.
In terms of TV Broadcasters the game should, in practice, never last longer than the current system with extra time and penalty shootout. In practice I believe most games will be resolved far more quickly rather than the tense, protracted, drawn out extra time which accompanies the current full team complement system.
TV Schedules would not be disturbed any more than they are currently accommodated. The crucial point is that whoever wins the game does so with the celebration of a Golden Goal rather than the vile vitriol which we have seen
in the past directed at those who have failed to convert a penalty.
Maybe it is a left field suggestion but I am surprised it has not at least been tried as a system in amateur / lower leagues to establish how feasible such a system would be.
We should celebrate success rather than gaze on misery.
David Griffith
A very interesting suggestion but I fear it would never be accepted. I too hate penalty shootouts.
I have another suggestion. In the modern age every single aspect of a game is monitored throughout the 90 minutes from the number of passes to “expected goals” and everything in between – shots on and off target, corners, tackles won etc etc. With all this data it must be possible to keep a running score of the positive aspects and the team with the highest positive score is the winner if the match is drawn after extra time. The current points tally could be made known during the extra time period so the team that is behind on points would be incentivised to score.
I left a comment but it’s attached to the wrong post 🙄
I like your thinking, David. It removes the pressure on one person.
They do this in some youth tournaments to great effect. If a 7-a-side game is level, a player is removed every 2 minutes until someone scores. It adds lots of excitement and tactics, and ultimately cannot be blamed on one person.
An alternative is to replace penalties with attack v defence, like ice hockey – both sides choose 3 outfield players (who will both attack and then defend), plus their keeper. First team attacks and has 30 seconds to score, then change over, until one team scores and the other doesn’t. Again, a collective responsibility rather than on one person.
But all these ideas rely on the governing bods to enact fundamental change, and they don’t like to rock the boat and risk their pensions…
Hi there David,
I too share a hatred for penalty shoot-outs. To me, a penalty is precisely that; an award of a special free kick. They are remedies for during a game. IMO, they have absolutely nothing to do with deciding a game. It is almost as arbitrary as seeing who can take a throw in the furthest.
You wouldn’t have a penalty shoot out during a game, so why have one at the end? The shoot-out has nothing to do with the playing a game of football. But we’ve allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking there is no alternative.
So what are the alternatives?
Personally, I don’t agree with your suggestions of:
1) Having a golden goal. I used to think this was the perfect solution, but in practice, instead of making teams more attack minded, it did the reverse, and made teams too defensive, so it was dropped.
2) Removing players from either side: Again, I used to like this idea, but actually, for poor players who run their hearts out, they are now having to work even harder at the end. This brings to mind the film ‘They shoot horses, don’t they?’ I just think it is v unedifying, and the standard of football would get ridiculous (IMO)
OK – So what do I propose:
Well, I’m going to state the obvious, but it is important to realise what we absolutely currently accept already, and are happy with, without any question:
So; currently, if a team has more goals at the end, that team wins when the ref ends the game. It is the ref’s whistle that brings on the celebrations, not an act by one team or the other to end it.
So, bearing in mind that we accept this status quo, my proposal, is simply to add more deciding factors than goals, if the match is drawn at the end of extra time. And just like everyone knows during the game that when a goal is scored it will contribute to the outcome, so too could adding additional factors in exactly the same way.
Like you, I agree that we want to encourage attacking football, so I propose more attacking data be added.
1) The team that hits the woodwork the most wins.
2) If that is even, then EITHER (to be agreed) the team that hit the woodwork the most often during the tournament wins OR won the most corners during the match.
3) If that is even, then which team had the fewest red and yellow cards
(a formula would need to be agreed as to how many points should be given for red and for yellow cards e.g. say, 3 for a straight red, 2 for a red from a double yellow, and 1 from a yellow?).
4) Depending on 2) above, if it is still even, then who had the most corners / hitting the woodwork during the tournament.
All this info can be displayed during the match, so everyone will know, just like when a goal is scored.
So hitting a post need not absolutely count for nothing in future etc.
What do you reckon, David?